Dear experts,
In our experiment design, we give different event cues to ask subjects to keep simulating different type of future events. We want them keeping simulating until we give them a stop cue (after 16s). But I had admit there is a big flaw of our experiment. Most of the subjects stop simulation ahead of time and then waiting for the stop cue. Worst of all, we just have a roughly duration estimate made by the subject after experiment rather than an accurate RT. So we never know how long they simulated actually.
Based on the roughly duration estimate, I only can guess that most of subjects are doing simulation in the early 4s (it's the minimum value). So I modeling the different conditions duration as 4s (instead of 16s), and set the remainder 12s as a new condition names confounder. Based on this setting, I get a result which I think is explicable and reasonable (we repeated others findings and get the result in line with our assumption). I also tried setting the duration as 4s, 6s, 8s, 10s, 12s, 14s or 16s each time, and I find the effect in our ROIs become more and more weak and disappeared after 8s.
I think the problem with this setting is that every trial have a different RT while I just analysis the initial 4s (we didn't have the reality RT, so we can't modeling it as duration). But I think the cognitive process are similar during the 16s And this is more like a state task. Other researchers also ask subjects keeping thinking and active break them instead of active stop by the subjects. So the RTs may not affect the amplitude in the same way like the other experiment's 'reaction time'.
It's absolutely not a best approach. But Can this setting and argument be reluctantly accept? Or I only can redo the experiment?
I will appreciate it so much if anyone can give me some advice.
Bset wishes.
Fan